IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

2022-NCCOA-712

No. COA22-41

Filed 1 November 2022

Graham County, Nos. 94 CRS 431, 14 CRS 50285, 15 CRS 253

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

BILLY EDWARDS, Defendant.

Appeal by Defendant from order entered 11 September 2020 by Judge William 

H. Coward in Graham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 

August 2022.

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Zachary K. 

Dunn, for the State. 

Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Nicholas 

C. Woomer-Deters, for Defendant.

GRIFFIN, Judge.

¶ 1 Defendant Billy Edwards appeals from an order denying his motion for 

appropriate relief. Defendant asserts the trial court improperly denied his MAR

because the State’s felony larceny indictment failed to allege a legal entity capable of 

owning property. We affirm the trial court’s order. 

I. Factual and Procedural History

¶ 2 On 13 June 1994, Defendant was indicted for breaking and entering, felony 
STATE V. EDWARDS

2022-NCCOA-712

Opinion of the Court

larceny, and felony possession of stolen goods. The indictment alleged Defendant 

broke into a building occupied by Graham County Schools and stole a television, VCR, 

and microwave. Graham County Schools was named as the owner of the property. 

On 14 December 1995, Defendant pled guilty to felony larceny and was sentenced to 

three years in prison. 

¶ 3 Almost twenty years later, Defendant was indicted for possession of stolen 

goods or property and safecracking. Defendant was subsequently indicted as a 

habitual felon. The habitual felon indictment included the 14 December 1995 felony 

larceny conviction as one of the qualifying convictions. A jury found Defendant guilty 

of possession of stolen goods or property and felonious safecracking. Defendant pled 

guilty to obtaining a habitual felon status. Defendant was sentenced to a minimum 

of eighty-four months in prison.

¶ 4 Defendant appealed the ruling, and this Court reversed the conviction for 

felonious safecracking, vacated the consolidated judgment, and remanded the case 

for resentencing. See State v. Edwards, 252 N.C. App. 265, 2017 WL 897711 (March 

7, 2017) (unpublished). The trial court entered a judgment and found Defendant 

guilty of possession of stolen goods and for attaining habitual felon status.

¶ 5 On 11 May 2020, Defendant filed an MAR asserting that the trial court lacked 

jurisdiction to accept Defendant’s 14 December 1995 felony larceny plea. Defendant 

claimed the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the indictment “did not identify 
STATE V. EDWARDS

2022-NCCOA-712

Opinion of the Court

the victim as a business or other entity capable of owning property.” Additionally, 

since the felony larceny conviction was one of three convictions included on 

Defendant’s habitual felon indictment, Defendant argued the habitual felon 

conviction should be vacated and Defendant should be resentenced pursuant only to 

the charge of possession of stolen goods.

¶ 6 On 11 September 2020, the trial court entered an order denying Defendant’s 

MAR. The trial court determined that the victim named in the indictment—“Graham 

County Schools”—clearly “implie[d] the statutorily-required ownership by the 

Graham County Board of Education.”

¶ 7 On 21 May 2021, Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which was 

granted.

II. Analysis

¶ 8 Generally, “appellate courts review trial court orders deciding motions for 

appropriate relief to determine whether the findings of fact are supported by 

evidence, whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law, and whether 

the conclusions of law support the order entered by the trial court.” State v. Hyman, 

371 N.C. 363, 382, 817 S.E.2d 157, 169 (2018) (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted). However, when a defendant’s MAR only raises a legal issue, this Court 

reviews the challenge de novo. State v. Marino, 265 N.C. App. 546, 549, 828 S.E.2d 

689, 692 (2019).
STATE V. EDWARDS

2022-NCCOA-712

Opinion of the Court

¶ 9 Here, Defendant attacks the sufficiency of an indictment, which is a question 

of law. See State v. Oldroyd, 380 N.C. 613, 2022-NCSC-27, ¶ 8 (citation omitted) 

(“When a criminal defendant challenges the sufficiency of an indictment lodged 

against him, that challenge presents this Court with a question of law which we 

review de novo.”). We therefore employ a de novo standard in our review. 

¶ 10 “It is well settled ‘that a valid bill of indictment is essential to the jurisdiction 

of the trial court to try an accused for a felony.’” State v. Campbell, 368 N.C. 83, 83, 

772 S.E.2d 440, 443 (2015) (quoting State v. Sturdivant, 304 N.C. 293, 308, 283 S.E.2d 

719, 729 (1981) (citations omitted)). Indictments function to “identify clearly the 

crime being charged, thereby putting the accused on reasonable notice to defend 

against it and prepare for trial, and to protect the accused from being jeopardized by 

the State more than once for the same crime.” Sturdivant, 304 N.C. at 311, 283 

S.E.2d at 731 (citation omitted). While indictments “must satisfy both the statutory 

strictures of N.C.G.S. § 15A-924 and the constitutional purposes which indictments 

are designed to satisfy[,]” these strictures are not intended “to bind the hands of the 

State with technical rules of pleading[.]” Oldroyd, 2022-NCSC-27, ¶ 8 (citation 

omitted); Sturdivant, 304 N.C. at 311, 283 S.E.2d at 731. 

¶ 11 Defendant specifically asserts his larceny indictment is fatally defective 

because it failed to allege ownership by a legal entity capable of owning property. 

Defendant argues the use of “Graham County Schools” in his indictment renders it 
STATE V. EDWARDS

2022-NCCOA-712

Opinion of the Court

fatally defective because “the Graham County Board of Education is the exclusive 

entity capable of owning school property in Graham County.” We disagree.

¶ 12 A valid larceny indictment “allege[s] the ownership of the [stolen] property 

either in a natural person or a legal entity capable of owning (or holding) property.” 

Campbell, 368 N.C. 83, 772 S.E.2d at 443 (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted). An indictment alleging ownership in an entity must indicate, if the owner 

is not a natural person, that the entity “‘is a corporation or otherwise a legal entity 

capable of owning property,’ unless the entity’s name itself ‘imports an association or 

a corporation capable of owning property.’” Id. (quoting State v. Thornton, 251 N.C. 

658, 661, 111 S.E.2d 901, 903 (1960). 

¶ 13 In applying these rules, our Supreme Court has held that merely listing a 

company’s name that gives no indication that it is a corporation or failing to state

that it is an entity capable of owning property is insufficient for a valid larceny 

indictment. See Thornton, 251 N.C. at 662, 111 S.E.2d at 904 (“In the indictment sub 

judice, there is no allegation that ‘The Chuck Wagon’ is a corporation, and the words 

‘The Chuck Wagon’ do not import a corporation.”). On the other hand, larceny

indictments have been upheld where the name of the entity relates back or “imports” 

an entity that can own property. See Campbell, 368 N.C. at 83, 772 S.E.2d at 444 

(holding that alleging “a church or other place of religious worship” as the property 

owner is sufficient for a valid larceny indictment); State v. Ellis, 368 N.C. 342, 346, 
STATE V. EDWARDS

2022-NCCOA-712

Opinion of the Court

776 S.E.2d 675, 678 (2015) (affirming this Court’s recognition of “North Carolina 

State University” as an entity capable of owning property). 

¶ 14 In Campbell and Ellis, the Court pointed out that the entity at issue in each 

case was authorized by our General Statues to own property. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§

61-2 – 61-5 (2021) (authorizing religious societies’ ownership of property); Id. § 116-3 

(authorizing “the University of North Carolina” as an entity capable of owning 

property). Significant to our analysis in this case is the Court’s use of section 116-3 

to hold that North Carolina State University is an entity capable of owning property 

when the statute only states “[t]he Board of Governors of the University of North 

Carolina . . . [and] the University of North Carolina[,]” while North Carolina State 

University is a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina. Compare

id. (“The Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina shall be known and 

distinguished by the name of ‘the University of North Carolina’ and shall continue as 

a body politic and corporate . . . .”), with id. § 116-4 (“The University of North Carolina 

shall be composed of the following institutions of higher education . . . North Carolina 

State University at Raleigh . . . .”). Ellis is instructive in the case before us because 

although the corporate body capable of owning property is the University of North 

Carolina, North Carolina State University falls under the corporate body as a 

constituent institution, yet was sufficient for a valid larceny indictment as an entity 

capable of owning property. Ellis, 368 N.C. at 346, 776 S.E.2d at 678; see also Bd. of 
STATE V. EDWARDS

2022-NCCOA-712

Opinion of the Court

Governors of Univ. of N.C. v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 917 F.2d 812, 816 (4th Cir. 1990)

(stating that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 116-3 “constitutes the Board of Governors of UNC as 

‘a body politic and corporate.’ It does not grant this status to any of the sixteen 

campuses that the Board administers.” (citations omitted)). 

¶ 15 Here, our General Statutes state that “[t]he board of education of each county 

in the State shall be a body corporate by the name and style of ‘The .......... County 

Board of Education,’ . . . [and] shall hold all school property and be capable of 

purchasing and holding real and personal property[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-40

(2021). While the Graham County Board of Education may be the corporate body 

capable of owning property by statute, we find this case similar to Ellis. The Court 

there found that “North Carolina State University” was sufficient as a legal entity 

capable of owning property. Here, we conclude that “Graham County Schools,” and 

the addition of the specific location as “Robbinsville Elementary School,” while not 

the corporate body “Graham County Board of Education,” falls under the umbrella of 

the “Graham County Board of Education,” like that of a constituent institution to the 

University of North Carolina. 

¶ 16 We hold the use of “Graham County Schools,” with the addition of the specific 

location as “Robbinsville Elementary School,” in this case was sufficient for a valid 

larceny indictment because it “imports” the Graham County Board of Education. 

Thornton, 251 N.C. at 661, 111 S.E.2d at 903.
STATE V. EDWARDS

2022-NCCOA-712

Opinion of the Court

III. Conclusion

¶ 17 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order denying Defendant’s 

MAR. 

AFFIRMED.

Judges TYSON and ARROWOOD concur.